tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post114107606805424517..comments2016-12-09T07:22:39.222-08:00Comments on Geeking with Greg: Different visions of the future of searchGreg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1145921653913333452006-04-24T16:34:00.000-07:002006-04-24T16:34:00.000-07:00Since searchers are no better at putting together ...Since searchers are no better at putting together a search query now than they were six or seven years ago, it would seem prudent to just put that dream out of our minds. And if we expect the computer to do all the work of figuring out that when we type the query “horses” in a search box when we’re really looking for “saddles”, then I’d say we’re setting our goals a little high. I can’t get Google to figure out that where I’m from “bass cleaning” is not cleaning a musical instrument, so my hopes are low that it’ll do much better anytime soon.<BR/><BR/>Naw, I’d say that Bradley Horowitzis on to something there. Maybe the two giant worlds, Search and Social Networks, are about to collide. I recently saw this on CNN Money, "...As such, Bill Tancer, general manager of global research with Hitwise, an Internet research firm, thinks Google needs to make more deals in social networking. He said Google's biggest threat will not come from search engines like Yahoo!, Microsoft's MSN or IAC/Interactive's Ask.com but from MySpace, the social networking site owned by News Corp.<BR/><BR/>"Google's core business is helping people consume information on the Web. As we see Google grow out its content offerings such as finance and maps, I think they'd have to make a serious play into more social and user-generated content," he said..."."<BR/><BR/>MySpace claims around 67 million profiles, Friendster around 24 million, Tagworld, Tagged, Orkut, LiveJournal, etc., etc., all add up to well over 100 million users, maybe significantly more. Extending the power of these types of huge networks into pure search could be a major factor in the evolution of Search. The huge communities, and the smaller sub-communities within these sites could influence virtually all the key factors in search, including relevance, inclusion and exclusion, advertising paradigms, and the actual content itself. Could it, infusing the right social search technologies, eventually take the place of (or be strongly complementary to) traditional search technologies? It’s starting to look like the answer is “yes”. Sure, we'll have to improve the way we search tags and the process of tagging itself. Also, we have to make saving and sharing link information an organic part of a user's browsing experience, and more... But, at such a scale, human-indexed search results might be superior to traditional algorithmic search results, and ordered in a superior way (by the community). And with millions of members probably sharing around a million links per day, the index would be large enough to compete with anyone within a few months. It could be a significant. Why would the social networks be interested in playing? This article in the NYT illustrates that other avenues of monetizing their site will be on their radar moving forward. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/business/yourmoney/23myspace.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1Steve Mansfieldhttp://www.prefoundblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1142520579819653222006-03-16T06:49:00.000-08:002006-03-16T06:49:00.000-08:00Greg I think Google may also move toward Social Se...Greg I think Google may also move toward Social Search, even if it does not abandon its current approach.<BR/>See my post IS Google Contemplating Social Search at http://www.thebizofcoding.com/<BR/>What do you think?<BR/>Ujwalujwal tickoohttp://www.thebizofcoding.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1141090000436978332006-02-27T17:26:00.000-08:002006-02-27T17:26:00.000-08:00Good point, Jeremy. I agree that suggestions on q...Good point, Jeremy. I agree that suggestions on query refinements are an important part of search as a dialogue. It is a good way to help people find what they want.<BR/><BR/>Offhand, I'd say Clusty is probably the best example of a search engine pursuing that strategy.Greg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1141089532094815022006-02-27T17:18:00.000-08:002006-02-27T17:18:00.000-08:00Brilliant post, Greg. I've always had this gut fe...Brilliant post, Greg. I've always had this gut feeling that these were GYM's three different philosophical approaches to web IR. But to see them side by side like this is enlightening and clarifying, and really drives home the point. Your commentary on each is good, too.<BR/><BR/>I will, however, take issue with one of your thoughts: <I>There certainly is promise in treating search as a dialogue -- an iterative process rather than a one-shot deal -- but I think any attempt by MSN to get users to do more work is doomed from the start. People are lazy, appropriately so. They want what they want and they want it now. If you don't find it for them quickly and easily, they'll switch to a tool that will.</I><BR/><BR/>I think what people tend to forget is that, when the search doesn't work the first time, we are already doing much more work. We are already not lazy.<BR/><BR/>Think about it. I'll bet you a hunnert to one that, when using Google and not finding what you were looking for, you have refined your search, and issued the query again. Maybe you added a word. Maybe you took a word away or changed it to a synonym. Maybe you put a phrase in quotation marks. Or added a "+" operator in front of some particular word. But the point it, you reissued your query, did you not? <BR/><BR/>Well, all that is meant by Microsoft in "search as a dialog" is that, instead of you going back and refining your query over and over and over again, you let the search engine offer clarifying suggestions to you, from which you can choose. Click the one you meant, and you automatically refine your query, and get at what you want.<BR/><BR/>So how can users not want such a tool, but instead be happy to refine and reissue the query themselves? Why is it that, after refining the query 3-4 times and finally getting what they want, they say "wow, Google is amazing! There is my result, at the very top of the list!" Don't users realize that they're already doing all this work themselves? <BR/><BR/>The problem is I don't think they realize it. And I don't think they blame it on the search engine. I recall reading a study once (can't remember details, so take this comment with a grain of salt) that suggested that when Google didn't work, users blamed themselves. So they consciously didn't think of the 3-4 iterations it took until they issued the "right" query as part of their search. <BR/><BR/>Well, I'm sorry. If Google is relying on this.. on users blaming themselves, and reissuing queries until they "get it right", then their overall experience is just going to get worse and worse, while companies that actually let me easily refine my query (in dialog form) are going to get better and better.jeremynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1141080537640600712006-02-27T14:48:00.000-08:002006-02-27T14:48:00.000-08:00My understanding is that the only reason A9 exists...My understanding is that the only reason A9 exists is because of Udi, so I think he was pretty key.Greg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1141080089353185002006-02-27T14:41:00.000-08:002006-02-27T14:41:00.000-08:00Well I left A9 before Udi did (internship ended, n...Well I left A9 before Udi did (internship ended, not because I don't like A9), but I wouldn't necessarily assume that one person (okay, so he was teh CEO ;-) ) leaving will change everything.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01475679793229977930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1141078819322161352006-02-27T14:20:00.000-08:002006-02-27T14:20:00.000-08:00Well, Udi Manber, who argued for forcing people to...Well, Udi Manber, who argued for forcing people to learn how to search better, left A9 recently.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure whether they'll continue down their old path or look for a new strategy now.<BR/><BR/>More on Udi and A9 in a few of my previous posts ([<A HREF="http://glinden.blogspot.com/2005/03/personalized-search-at-pc-forum.html" REL="nofollow">1</A>] [<A HREF="http://glinden.blogspot.com/2004/10/where-is-search-going.html" REL="nofollow">2</A>] [<A HREF="http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/02/udi-manber-leaves-a9.html" REL="nofollow">3</A>]).Greg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-1141078619548464042006-02-27T14:16:00.000-08:002006-02-27T14:16:00.000-08:00why "until recently" for A9?why "until recently" for A9?Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01475679793229977930noreply@blogger.com